Appeal No. 95-4152 Application 08/042,044 the wearer of the head gear 102" (Br19) and, as shown in figure 11, "is not mounted underneath the brim of the Hanson helmet 40" (Br20). Appellants do not argue that figures 10 and 11 do not show a camera. Appellants do address figure 9, which shows equipment 90 which could be an infrared video camera, in their arguments. We find that the night vision equipment 90 in figure 9 is intended to be mounted in the same relative position to the user's eye and the helmet as the display 104 in figure 11. The display 104 is "generally underneath said brim" because it is located mostly underneath the brim of the helmet 40. Also, the face frame "includes an outwardly extending shell 96 which houses the video display 88 and night vision equipment 90" (col. 8, lines 2-4) and the display 88 and equipment 90 "are thereby protected" (col. 8, lines 6-7). The outwardly extending shell of the face frame forms an extension of the helmet brim. In addition, as discussed supra, it would have been a matter of common sense to one skilled in the art to locate a camera under the helmet brim where there is known to exist an envelope of reduced heat. For these reasons, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. - 13 -Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007